Readers' comments

From Whitlam's, 'Kerr's Cur' to Howard's 'kids cost money(?)'...; rhetoric in this country has evaporated. I think your readership would be rewarded by a special feature on rhetoric in today's elections to wit, this trend towards politicising everything at the expense of driving real and important differences and initiatives may be lessened if our politicians borrowed from rhetoric to build their differences.

@LATO7 - I beleive Ms Gillard's comment alluded to the fact that she was more likely to be put on the Western Bulldogs full forward line than to replace Mr Rudd. The Western Bulldaogs are an AFL team, not a 'rugby' team. I can deal with you making disparaging remarks about my Prime Minister, but please get your facts straight on the football.

From what little I know of the Australian politics, Tony Abbott seems a bit far-right to be able to win. Getting Julia Gillard, however, doesn't seem like it would be a big relief to the Australians. In my mind, she is a backstabber - and her rise to power, curiously enough, happened simultaneously with the former PM Kevin Rudd's trouble with the international mining cabal over the proposed new taxes and regulations.

The greatest beat-up in this election is that of stopping the boat people. The number of people coming to Australia by boat is less than 10% of those who arrive by plane and illegally prolong their stay yet both the major parties propose to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to try and prevent asylum seekers coming by boat and nothing on following up those illegally staying in the country. In essence, this supposed issue is a non-event.

@Dr Joe Hockey - try posting some data rather than Tory-scaremongering. People aren't falling anymore for the unsubstantiated rubbish your ilk posts. Greens policies are fully out-in-the-open, published on their website for all to see. Point out where any of them back up the things you attest in your bilious rant.

It seems that there is a good chance that Australia will be landed with a Prime Minister who, one week was swearing her head off that she would become a rugby captain before she would ever dream of challenging Kevin Rudd, the then elected Prime Minister, only to turn round and 'knife' him in the back the following week! The Australian electorate should not expect any better treatment from her.

Old Collegian - you've been corrected on this many times but it's only the LNP in QLD otherwise it's the Coalition. This does go somewhat to undermining your credibility.

The fact of the matter is that Australians have made up their own mind long before this election started.

Labour has alienated many young professionals "the geek vote" with it's plans for a mandatory nation wide internet filter. The Liberal Party have recently outright condemned (and rightfully so) this gross infringement of civil rights. I suspect that this alone will sweep Gilliard out of power.

This is not to say this is the only factor in the upcoming Labour defeat. Many Australians still believe in the idea of "mateship", that it is wrong to do wrong by your friends. The way Gillard deposed Russ will resonate with many traditional Labour voters who actually identifiy with this particularly Australian value. A lot of Labour voters, vote on value, they do not give a shit about the economy, or how Abbott is going to fund any of his promises - they give a shit about values.

There is no doubt that the 2010 Australian Federal Election will be one of the most closely contested in the nation's political history. Labor started the campaign with a clear lead, which has now evaporated, with the latest opinion polls predicting a "hung parliament" - with Labor holding just 75 seats, the LNP 72 seats and Independents/Greens holding three seats in the 150 seat Lower House. The question is, just who will scramble over the line on Saturday 21 August 2010? Ms Gillard has attempted to hold the line and not give way to defeatism and Mr Abbott has done what his spin doctors have advised him to do and played on fears of boatloads of refugees and mountains of government debt. Many commentators, though, have expressed boredom with the campaign, claiming it is too tightly scripted and too tightly managed for any real differentiation to be made between the ALP Government and the LNP Opposition. Mr Abbott has continued in his pugilistic style, alienating many women voters, whilst Ms Gillard still suffers from voter anger over the manner in which she deposed former Prime Minister Rudd. Labor will be heavily 'hammered' by disillusioned and angry voters in the key States of New South Wales and Queensland and the Opposition could very possibly drag itself over the line through such anti-Labor sentiments. Still, there is one week to go and Ms Gillard and her Deputy, Mr Swan, will probably pull out all the stops to emphasize Labor's greatest political asset - the sound state of the Australian economy - with the lowest debt and lowest deficit levels amongst all advanced economies internationally. The biggest winners in this Election will be the Greens, whose preferences will be crucial to Labor's survival or defeat. This moderate, middle-of-the-road, environmentalist Party will control the balance of power in the Senate and is currently receiving almost 13% of the popular vote, as measured by reliable polls. It appears that Australia will be in for a long, drawn-out evening as the votes are counted and posted on Election Night. There are perhaps two possibilities - a landslide LNP win or a cliff-hanger subject to re-counts and disputed returns that might last for days before a viable winner emerges from the melee. Labor is hoping to turn things around in the dying days of the contest, whilst the LNP is hoping that its support has not peaked too early only to fall away at the very end. Australia's future is at stake and voters must decide whether they want more of the same under a tarnished woman Prime Minister or a marked lurch to the right under a failed candidate for the Roman Catholic priesthood. Gamblers are still betting on a wafer-thin Labor victory, though, at this point, it hardly seems a certainty.

By and large Victorian Labour is a different kettle of fish to the Labour Party in Canberra: that is dominated by New South Wales Labour who have make a pigs breakfast and dogs dinner of New South Wales. If you want the Commonwealth to go the same way, vote Labour.

The Greens are dangerous because their policies do not attract scrutiny.
They are not pro environment-they are anti freedom and free enterprise
They are against immigration unless you come in illegally.
They are against employment and business.
They support union thuggery.
They think that everyone can be on welfare with no responsibility and that governments can pay for this
They have a totalitarian streak a mile wide and believe they know what is best for everyone.
All this is cloaked in a saintly aura of protecting the environment.
Many years ago the Australian Democrats were described as the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
The Greens are the gremlins at the bottom of the garden.Let the in and they will seek to destroy.

"reinstate a discredited Howard-era policy of dumping boat people there" Wow there some nice neutral reporting for you NOT!

I wouldn't say this policy was discredited. During its 6 1/2 years operation (from 2001 to February 2008) a total of 1,637 people had been detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities. Of these, 1,153 (70 per cent) were ultimately resettled as legitimate refugees. Of those who were resettled 705 (around 61 per cent) were resettled in Australia.

Labor with their supposedly enlightened policy have overseen nearly 150 boats containing almost 6,000 arrivals since the start of 2009.

So which of those two policies has been truly discredited?

I'm guessing it might be the one that is detaining nearly 3,000 people a year, and not the one that detained on average 250 per year!

As for 'dumping'... well we might have to ask Ms Gillard for an alternative verb to use if Labor open their planned facility in Timor Leste!

One of the major problems with the Greens is that they have not appeared in the media as well as the two other leading parties. People don't have much of an idea of what their policies are like. Furthermore they have expressed a lot of sympathy for boat people, and terrorist organizations such as the Tamil Tigers have expressed their support.

Mr. Abbot's Broadband plan might be more economically feasible. It is $34 billion lesser while merely slows down speeds of about 6% of the Australian population who live in rural areas.

One issue with both parties is that it is uncertain whether they will complete implementing their projects during their 3 year tenure at office. A railway line near Carlingford had been promised ten years ago, and has not yet been implemented. Ms. Gillard promised $2 bn for that project.

The Labour Party is introducing a mining tax to bring more benefits from natural resources to ordinary Australians, while the Liberals are not addressing the ownership issue of natural resources. Are ordinary Australians getting a fair share of the natural resources? the question is not answered by the Liberals.

The Deputy Opposition leader Ms. Bishop talked of having better relationships with foreign countries and especially mentioned India. The Labour party has harassed ordinary Indians, while they turned a blind eye when Tamil Tiger terrorist supporters were parading in the cities. I think Ms. Gillard and the Labour party need to work on Diplomacy and Foreign Policy.

Even though Ms. Gillard is trying to open an immigration processing centre in East Timor, Ms. Bishop pointed out that the East Timorese parliament had voted against Ms. Gillard's plan. I think Ms. Gillard should announce considering Nauru.

Some of the areas being focused on such as Broadband, Education, Water, Renewable Energy are excellent, and Australians in general can look forward to a brighter future.